Civilian Warrants and Mass Incarceration

As
more attention is devoted to mass incarceration, many advocates are calling for
the decriminalization of certain offenses, non-enforcement of some existing
criminal statutes, and halting the extensive law enforcement operations present
in the public school system. Yet many commentators overlook the civilian
warrant process and its substantial contribution to mass incarceration in North
Carolina.

What exactly is a
civilian warrant?

In
fact, there is no such thing as a “civilian warrant.” Neither the term
“civilian warrant” nor any other colloquial variation have ever appeared
anywhere in the North Carolina General Statutes. Stakeholders created the term
to describe the unique process where a private citizen initiates a warrant
against another citizen. Civilian warrants do not differ from general warrants
in any manner other than the fact that the initiator is a private citizen and
not law enforcement.

Impact on the Community:
Civilian Warrants in Practice

The
civilian warrant process poses significant challenges in several respects. First,
the range of charges is overly broad. Second, the possible case outcomes are
incredibly limited and usually do not serve the interests of justice. Finally,
the process lends itself to over-criminalization and contributes directly to
mass incarceration, especially amongst low-income communities.

Broad Range of Charges

In
the current system, any person may make a request to the magistrate for a civilian
warrant for any one of a wide variety of charges. Mostcharges relate to
interpersonal disputes and property offenses. For example: Communicating
Threats; Simple Assault (includes Assault on a Female); Cyberstalking;
Threatening/Harassing Phone Calls; Domestic Criminal Trespass; Domestic
Violence Protective Order Violation; Injury
to Personal Property; Misdemeanor Larceny; Simple Worthless Check; Failure
to Return Rental Property; Shoplifting, etc. Many of these charges
disproportionately affect persons of lower socioeconomic status. For example, the
charges of simple worthless check and failure to return rental property (to a
rent-to-buy business) disproportionately impact low-income individuals. Consequently,
civilian warrants (and the resulting arrests) contribute to the over-burdening
of the public defender system and of private attorneys who take on indigent
defendants.

In
each of the scenarios, cases tend to be prolonged–-draining court resources and
occupying valuable attorney time.

Scenario
1: Cases
are often continued for several court dates in the hopes that the state’s
witness who filed the civilian warrant appears. In many cases, the witness does
not appear and the case is ultimately dismissed. However, the charge will
remain on the defendant’s record.

Scenario
2: Here,
the victim does appear in court, and the prosecutor arranges court-ordered
mediation. This typically involves a $100.00 cost to the defendant ($40.00 for
mediation and $60.00 in court costs). Mediation frequently results in a
dismissal of the charge after the two parties come to an understanding with the
court-appointed mediator.

Scenario
3: Defendant
is offered a deferred prosecution. A deferred prosecution is described as “punishment
without conviction.” However, the defendant may face punishment if she violates
the agreement reached with the prosecutor

There
is the overarching perception within the court system that the civilian warrant system is inherently unfair. Many
professionals involved in the process consider frivolous warrantsand “frequent fliers” to be the
greatest drawbacks to the civilian warrant process. Frivolous civilian warrants
are warrants that are fabricated, usually in a retaliatory manner by a witness
or victim. The witness or victim provides faulty information or exaggerates the
facts in order to pass the low bar of “probable cause” and a magistrate issues
the warrant. These warrants tend to involve interpersonal disputes that could
be resolved extra-judicially. Frequent fliers are individuals who repeatedly
seek and are successfully granted civilian warrants. Frequent fliers are often
associated with frivolous warrants and are perceived as the biggest contributor
to frivolous warrants. The perceived issues with the civilian warrant process
is not unique to criminal defense attorneys. Many prosecutors, law enforcement
officers, and judges share the same concerns regarding endemic civilian warrant
abuse.

The Process: Over-criminalization
and Mass Incarceration of the Poor

There
are multiple reasons that civilian warrants are more frequently issued by and
against persons of low socioeconomic status. For one, the fact that civilian
warrants exist is not common knowledge amongst middle and upper class
individuals, perhaps with the exception of parties to domestic violence crimes.
Additionally, there is justifiable skepticism about the efficacy of law
enforcement amongst community members in low-income communities. Many
individuals will not call law enforcement for interpersonal disputes and will
proceed to the magistrate’s office first. In the event that someone does call
law enforcement, law enforcement officers (who are inundated with minor
offenses) oftentimes prefer not to conduct investigation into petty crimes. Consequently, officers frequently
refer individuals to magistrates. Finally, as described earlier, several of the
civilian warrant crimes affect
low-income individuals nearly exclusively.

Compounded
by the disproportionate issuance of civilian warrants in poorer communities, inadequate
case outcomes have particularly grave impacts on indigent defendants. Although
most of the crimes eligible for issuance
through civilian warrants are misdemeanors, they carry highly negative
connotations by name, despite being considered minor offenses. Even after a dismissal or a not-guilty
verdict, the charges remain on the defendant’s record. Collateral consequences
of these charges can be steep, including barriers to post-secondary education,
employment, and housing. Additionally,
charges may have intangible consequences on one’s self-esteem due to the stigma
associated with crime and “criminals” generally.

Looking for Reform

Although
the civilian warrant system is plagued with multiple issues, North Carolina’s
current system is not without its supporters. For example, many supporters have
found these warrants particularly useful in their civil and criminal
application as a means of preventing and combating domestic abuse. Domestic violence advocates have successfully
lobbied for the inclusion of cross-warrants in recent amendments to the North
Carolina General Statutes. Likewise, supporters have also found that in
communities where law enforcement declines to pursue thorough investigations,
civilian warrants have allowed some protection for community members in
property and person.

It
remains to be seen whether these beneficial outcomes justify the large
expenditure of resources and perceived abuse associated with the civilian
warrant system. More research into the efficiency of the process via Indigent Defense
Services and investigative journalism could aid in the development of
alternative processes. It may also be helpful to look at the reforms instituted
in Mecklenburg County.
Ultimately, the criminal justice system is only as virtuous as its capacity to
ensure procedural fairness and consistent results, and for the people most
vulnerable to the abuse of the State’s power.

Working...

If you are seeing this, you are either using a non-graphical browser or Netscape 4.x (4.7, 4.8, etc.) and this page appears very plain. If you are using a 4.x version of Netscape, this site is fully functional but lacks styles and optimizations available in other browsers. For full functionality, please upgrade your browser to the latest version of Internet Explorer or Firefox.